Re: [radext] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: (with DISCUSS)

["Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

Did finally send someone the review to the right people or should I ping Brian (again)?

Mirja


> Am 17.08.2016 um 19:18 schrieb Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>:
> 
> Apparently, Brian did the review.  I'm adding him to this thread so he
> can send the review to the draft distribution list.
> 
> Thank you,
> Kathleen
> 
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Would it be possible to see the IE doctor's feedback? The authors might find
>> it useful as well. If it has been distributed already, my apologies if I
>> missed it.
>> 
>> regards,
>>        Jouni
>> 
>> 8/17/2016, 7:04 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind kirjoitti:
>>> 
>>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: Discuss
>>> 
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> I fully support Alissa's discussion points and have two more to
>>> add:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext/
>>> 
>>> 1) IP-Port-Type TLV only covers UDP, TCP and ICMP. This is not very
>>> future-proof: there are other transport protocols that have ports or
>>> identifiers that may want to be supported in future. Also it is not clear
>>> to me from the document why this information is needed at all in the
>>> described use cases. Therefore I see two possible ways forward: Either
>>> remove the IP-Port-Type TLV or extend it to also cover other cases.
>>> 
>>> Related to this point I would like to mention that RFC6887 is not
>>> restricted to UDP/TCP and therefore the following sentence in section 2
>>> is not correct:
>>> "Note that the definitions of [...] "internal port", [...] "external
>>> port" [...] are the same as defined in Port Control Protocol (PCP)
>>> [RFC6887]"
>>> 
>>> 2) The IE doctors have provide feedback to IANA that the Information
>>> Elements in this doc are underspecified (not confirm with rules in RFC
>>> 7013) and should therefore be not registered.  Addressing this feedback
>>> could lead to a mayor rewrite of this doc, especially in the relation to
>>> the use and definition of transportType and receptively IP-Port-Type TLV,
>>> and should therefore be done before a final IESG decision.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>